The only expence which the holder of a bill, at the sdly. Expences. time it became due, can be put to by the dishonour of it, is that of the charge for noting and protesting, and he cannot demand more of any of the parties to the bill, than a satisfaction for that expense. But a party who has been obliged to pay the holder in consequence of the acceptor's refusal, frequently is put to other expences by the return of the bill, such as reexchange, postage, commission, and provision'. Re-exchange is the expence incurred by the bill Re-exchange. being dishonoured in a foreign country in which it was payable, and returned to the country in which it was made or indorsed, and there taken up: the amount of it depends on the course of the exchange between the countries through which the bill has been negotiated. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to shew that he has paid the re-exchange: it appears not to be decided, whether any exchange or re-exchange can be allowed between this and an enemy's country'. It is said, that the relative abundance, or scarcity, of money in different countries, is what forms the exchange between those countries. In the drawing of bills on a foreign country, the value of money in that country is the first thing to be inquired into; thus, for instance, supposing 71,000 livres tournois are worth £603: 19s: 10d. English money sterling, and that an English merchant has sold goods of the value of £603: 198: 10d. to a Frenchman, who wishes to pay him for the same by a bill of exchange payable in France, the bill must of course be drawn for 71,000 livres tournois: if at the time the bill is 'Auriol v. Thomas, 2 T. R. 52. 2 Cullen, 172.-1 Montague's Bank. Law, 146.-For the nature of Exchange, see Mont. Esp. L. b. 2. 1. 10. and Smith's Wealth of Nations, 2d. vol. 144. 213. 234, and the observations in De Tastet v. Baring, 11 East. 269.-Bayl. 159, 160. 'De Tastet v. Baring, 11 East. 265. * Cullen, 172.-Cullen, 102.-1 Montague, 146.-For the nature of Exchange, see Mont. Esp. L. b. 2. l. 10. and Smith's Wealth of Nations, 2d vol. 144. 234. And see observations in De Tastet v. Baring, 11 East. 269. Re-exchange. due, the exchange is in favour of France, and con sequently the value of 71,000 livres tournois exceeds that of £603:19s: 10d. English money, and the bill be returned to this country, and the drawer, or an indorser, be called on to take it up, he may (as in the case of Mellish v. Simeon ',) be obliged to pay £309:48:5d. more than the amount of the bill, which sum forms what is called the re-exchange, and is the difference between the draft and redraft". It appears that the drawer of a bill is liable for the whole amount of the re-exchange occasioned by the cir cuitous mode of returning the bill through the various countries in which it has been negotiated, as much as for that occasioned by a direct return, although payment of the bill were expressly prohibited by the laws of the country on which it was drawn. But the acceptor is not liable for re-exchange, for his contract cannot be carried farther than to pay the sum specified in the bill, together with legal interest, where interest is due. Where A. deposited a sum of money at the banking-house of B., in Paris, for which B. gave him his note payable in Paris, or at the choice of the bearer, at the Union Bank, in Dover, or at B.'s usual residence in London, according to the course of exchange upon Paris, and after this note was given, the direct course of exchange between London and Paris ceased altogether, having been previously to its total cessation extremely low, and the note was at a subsequent period presented for acceptance, and payment at the residence of B., in London, at which time there was a circuitous course of exchange on Paris, by way of Hamburgh, and it was holden, that A. was intitled to recover on the note according to such circuitous course of exchange upon Paris, at the 'Mellish v. Simeon, 2 Hen. Bla. 378. vide note ante, 122. 2 Francis v. Rucker, Ambl. 674. 2 Smith. W. N. 228. 3 Ante, 122. Napier v. Schneider, 12 East. 420.—Bayl. 160. time when the note was presented'. Between this Re-exchange. country and India, it is not customary to make a distinct charge of re-exchange; but it has been the constant course with respect to bills for payment of pagodas in the East Indies, and returned protested, to allow at the rate of 10s. per pagoda, and five per cent. after the expiration of thirty days from the notice to the defendant of the bill's dishonour, which includes interest, exchange, and all other charges 2. It appears from the case of Francis v. Rucker', that the drawer and indorsers of bills, drawn in Pensylvania on any person in Europe, and returned protested for non-payment to that country, are liable to the payment of £20 per cent. advance for the damage thereof. But the liability to pay re-exchange does not extend to the acceptor of a bill accepted in England: he is only liable for the principal sum, together with interest, according to the legal rate of interest where the bill is payable *. In De Tastet v. Baring, a verdict having passed for the defendants in an action to recover the amount of the re-exchange upon the dishonour of a bill drawn from London on Lisbon, upon evidence that the enemy was in possession of Portugal when the bill became due, and Lisbon was then blockaded by a British squadron, and there was in fact no direct exchange between London and Lisbon, though bills had in some few instances been negotiated between them through Hamburgh and America about that period, the Court refused to grant a new trial, on the presumption that the jury had found their verdict on the fact that no re-exchange was found to their satisfaction to have existed between Lisbon and London at the time 1 Pollard v. Herries, 3 Bos. & Pul. 335.-Ante, 367. and see Bayl. 159, 160. 2 Auriol v. Thomas, 2 T. R. 52.—Bayl. 161. 3 Francis v. Rueker, Amb. 672. * Woolsley v. De Crawford, 2 Campb. 445.-Napier v. Schneider, 12 East. 420. but see Pothier cited in Manning's Index, 64. 11 East. 265.-2 Campb, 65. S. C. Re-exchange. Provision, &c. the question having been properly left to them to allow damages in the name of re-exchange, if the plaintiff, who had indorsed the dishonoured bill to the holder, had either paid, or was liable to pay, re-exchange; and saving the question of law, whether any exchange or re-exchange could be allowed between this and a country in possession of the enemy. With respect to provision, it is said by Pothier', that it is usual for the holder of a bill to allow his agent, to whom he indorses it for the purpose of receiving payment for him, a certain sum of money called provision, at the rate of so much per cent. to recompense him, not only for his trouble, but also, if such agent be a banker, for the risk he runs of losing the money, which he is obliged to deposit with his correspondents in different places for the purpose of repaying his principal the amount of the money received on the bills. And it is said, that one half per cent. is not an unreasonable allowance, whether the agent be a banker or not. The charges above enumerated, are the only legal ones, nor can any extraordinary loss not necessarily incidental, which the holder or other parties may be put to by travelling, or by some advantageous engagement being delayed or defeated by the want of punctual payment, be in any case legally demanded. 2 ་ Lovelas, 235. cites Lex Merc. 461.-Poth. pl. 65.—Auriol v. Thomas, 2 T. R. 52.-Woolsley v. De Crawford, 2 Campb. 415. CHAPTER VI. OF THE ACTION OF DEBT ON A BILL, &c. THE remedy by action of debt, to enforce payment of a bill or note, and the proof of it under a commission of bankruptcy, remain to be considered in this chapter. action of debt on The action of debt on simple contract was formerly Sect. 1. Of the much in use, but was afterwards disused on account a bill or note. of the wager of law; it has lately revived in practice, and is now become a common action for the recovery of money due on simple contract. The principal advantages arising from adopting this remedy, are, first, that the plaintiff need not, after judgment by default, execute a writ of inquiry, or refer to the master to compute principal and interest; and, secondly, that the defendant must, in debt, on a bill of exchange, if there be no other count in the declaration on another simple contract, put in special bail on bringing a writ of error; but bail in error is not necessary, on a judgment by default in debt, on a promissory note, the validity of which instrument was not established until after the Statute James 1. c. 8.3. And if a declaration, in debt on a bill of exchange, contain any one count on a contract for which debt would not lie at the time of passing the Statute 3 J. 1. c. 8. bail in error is not necessary. Debt on simple contract, also, is not sustainable against executors or administrators 5, except in the Court of Ex 1 1 Gilb. on the Action of Debt, 363, 4.. 2 Ablet v. Ellis, 1 Bos. & Pul. 249.-Trier v. Bridgman, 2 East. 359. 3 Trier v. Bridgman, 2 East. 359. 4 Webb v. Geddes, 1 Taunt. 540.-Trier v. Bridgman, 2 East. 359. 5 Barry v. Robinson, 1 New Rep. 293.-Norwood v. Read, Plowd. 182.-Palmer v. Lawson, 1 Lev. 200.-Pinchon's case, 9 Co. 86, 7. 3 Bla. Com. 347. . NN |